|
<br />The letter of objection from Ms. Stewart, received on May 18, 2000, stated concerns about
<br />traffic safety and volume, noise, air pollution, property values, vibration, and aesthetics.
<br />Additional comments from Ms. Stewart submitted within 5 days of the Informal Conference
<br />include; deer/automobile accidents, overgrazing of her land by displaced deer, invasion of her
<br />property by displaced rodents, disruption of wetlands, disruption of water flow to stream on her
<br />property, destruction of gardens and crops by dust and pollution, health hazards of animals,
<br />livestock and poultry.
<br />The letter of objection received from Ms. Smesrud, received on June 20, 2000 (within 5 days of
<br />the informal conferencel, stated concerns about noise, dust, vibrations from equipment, air and
<br />soil pollution, aesthetics, disruption of water flow to stream on her property affecting wetlands
<br />and wildlife, adverse affects to her two wells, water contamination rendering her watercress
<br />inedible, displaced deer crossing roads and increasing deer/automobile accidents and causing crop
<br />damage on lands of surrounding farmers.
<br />Comments on Objections and Concerns
<br />Issues regarding noise, dust and air pollution, aesthetics, wetland disruption, property values,
<br />traffic safety, traffic volume, passible health hazards to animals, livestock and poultry, and wildlife
<br />invading and/or overgrazing adjacent properties, and causing crop damage on lands of surrounding
<br />farmers, are not specifically addressed in the Act and Rules. Therefore, failure of the application
<br />to address these issues does not prevent the application from meeting the minimum requirements
<br />of the Act and Rules. The applicant has indicated that an Emissions Permit, a Montrose County
<br />Special Use Permit, and a Montrose County Road Access and Driveway Permit applications have
<br />been submitted.
<br />Concerns regarding disruption of water flow to the stream on Ms. Stewart's property (stated by
<br />Ms. Stewart and Ms. Smesrud), and adverse affects to water flow to two wells on Ms. Stewart's
<br />property (stated by Ms. Smesrud), have been addressed through the applicant's commitment to
<br />methods of excavation that do not expose groundwater. On-site groundwater appears to be the
<br />source of the stream on Ms. Stewart's property. The applicant has demonstrated that the
<br />operation is not expected to directly affect surface or groundwater systems. Therefore, the
<br />application is in compliance with the performance requirements of Rule 3.1.5, 3.1.6 and 3.1 .7.
<br />Concern about the potential for soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination (stated by
<br />Ms. Smesrud) have been addressed by the applicant's commitment to minimize this potential by
<br />taking measures to ensure all hazardous materials on-site are stored in adequate spill containment
<br />structures. The applicant has demonstrated that the operation is not expected to directly affect
<br />surface or groundwater systems. Therefore, the application is in compliance with the
<br />performance requirements of Rule 3.1.5, 3.1.6 and 3.1.7.
<br />Concern about displaced wildlife crossing the highway, resulting in an increase in
<br />wildlife/automobile accidents, (stated by Ms. Stewart and Ms. Smesrud) are addressed by the
<br />applicant's commitment to several measures that minimize potential impacts to wildlife, thereby
<br />minimizing the incentive for those wildlife to relocate from the permit area. These measures
<br />include; limiting the affected area to ten acres or less at any one time, 200 foot buffer zones
<br />between the operation and Redvale Road, mining the area of poorest forage production first, and
<br />utilizing irrigation for the first two years of reclamation for faster re-establishment of vegetation.
<br />
|